Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

It’s an open question whether voucher schools will spend the money on education. I mean some will, I’m sure, but you’re proposing to give away free government money with no oversight, so inevitably it will attract a lot of knaves and scoundrels.

Hahahaha - sounds like fed funding to certain colleges!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

The point of the voucher program is that parents (wealthy or poor), use public money to any educational institution ( private, charter or public).

You’re misunderstanding what vouchers are. You’re just saying what the state of current education is, which is public money goes to public schools. The vouchers are attempting to change this status quo.

There are already vouchers in DC. The only thing that’s changed is the price of private school. How is that changing the status quo? More public money for private school administrators, I guess. It’s hard for me to get excited about that.

Maybe you could get excited by higher graduation rates for voucher participants. In the end that’s what matters, not how much funding public schools burn through.

Perhaps the voucher program could target those student populations that usually have lower graduation rates like poor kids and kids with special needs and/or learning differences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the tuition inflation argument. There are charter schools that make do with less money than private schools. My child is in one. The public district hates it and they always try to make their life harder.

It's not an argument, there's data:

https://carolinaforward.org/blog/vouchers-fuel-private-school-tuition-hikes/ - North Carolina

https://www.kcrg.com/2024/05/17/princeton-study-private-school-tuitions-rise-after-state-voucher-rollout/ - Iowa

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/08/13/oklahoma-private-school-tax-credit-tuition-increase-some-schools/74781756007/ - Oklahoma

I like how you give three sources that link to the same study that is not peer reviewed, and is basically sponsored by a think tank, which mentions in the fine print the papers are opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately educational departments are overtly politicized.

The increase in tuition is somewhat modest, and it’s expected given the price elasticity, ie more students for a limited capacity. It also matters what the tuition increase is used for, there’s not a lot of evidence that it goes all into administrator salaries. Paying effective teachers more is a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the tuition inflation argument. There are charter schools that make do with less money than private schools. My child is in one. The public district hates it and they always try to make their life harder.

It's not an argument, there's data:

https://carolinaforward.org/blog/vouchers-fuel-private-school-tuition-hikes/ - North Carolina

https://www.kcrg.com/2024/05/17/princeton-study-private-school-tuitions-rise-after-state-voucher-rollout/ - Iowa

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/08/13/oklahoma-private-school-tax-credit-tuition-increase-some-schools/74781756007/ - Oklahoma

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be WONDERFUL if a voucher program were to come to the DMV.

Who wouldn’t welcome more choice?

Where would all the slots come from? Most private schools (even parochial ones) are full or nearly full. They would be overwhelmed with demand.

They would adapt and expand, of course.

No they wouldn't. Half of the sell is that they are smaller with smaller class sizes and more individualized attention and admin that knows every kid. Expanding would go against that, and turn off the parents who chose a smaller school for a reason.

More schools can open up, then.

Also, schools get much more than the voucher amount per student, so if a student takes the voucher and leaves, that means more money per student for the remaining public school students, even if all the voucher funds comes from the school's budget.

E.g. the public school starts with 10 students which give the school 20k per year for an average of 20k per enrolled student per year, 5 students take the 10k per year voucher and leave, now the school makes 200k from the 20 students minus 50k from the vouchers leaving $150k. Over 5 enrolled students, that's a new average of $30k per enrolled student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they've repeatedly shown this just ends up benefitting people who were already paying for private school so it's just a transfer of wealth to those who already had money.

In Texas it will likely mainly benefit homeschool coops (current and future) who want to be paid to teach Christian-based learning. Not sure how common those are in the DMV.

And since they don't require the participating schools to teach the state standards, special education regulations, or the state testing then I would assume most private schools would participate so yes, the wealthier will get subsidized private education. But 10k is not enough for 'regular' people to attend most privates except maybe Catholics. The cost of attendance will probably go up more anyway.

This explains it very well.

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/03/texas-school-vouchers-greg-abbott-signs/

Aren't the voucher's limited to secular curriculum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

The point of the voucher program is that parents (wealthy or poor), use public money to any educational institution ( private, charter or public).

You’re misunderstanding what vouchers are. You’re just saying what the state of current education is, which is public money goes to public schools. The vouchers are attempting to change this status quo.

There are already vouchers in DC. The only thing that’s changed is the price of private school. How is that changing the status quo? More public money for private school administrators, I guess. It’s hard for me to get excited about that.

Maybe you could get excited by higher graduation rates for voucher participants. In the end that’s what matters, not how much funding public schools burn through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

The point of the voucher program is that parents (wealthy or poor), use public money to any educational institution ( private, charter or public).

You’re misunderstanding what vouchers are. You’re just saying what the state of current education is, which is public money goes to public schools. The vouchers are attempting to change this status quo.

There are already vouchers in DC. The only thing that’s changed is the price of private school. How is that changing the status quo? More public money for private school administrators, I guess. It’s hard for me to get excited about that.

Anything coming out of Texas government is a disaster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

The point of the voucher program is that parents (wealthy or poor), use public money to any educational institution ( private, charter or public).

You’re misunderstanding what vouchers are. You’re just saying what the state of current education is, which is public money goes to public schools. The vouchers are attempting to change this status quo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

It’s an open question whether voucher schools will spend the money on education. I mean some will, I’m sure, but you’re proposing to give away free government money with no oversight, so inevitably it will attract a lot of knaves and scoundrels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP asks about vouchers in DC or the DMV. Would there be enough vouchers and spaces in private schools for all 50k kids in DCPS? Or the other 47k in DCPCS? Shouldn’t all the families have a choice?

k

Anyone in favor of vouchers want to field this one?

Where there are not enough private schools, who of the 50k students gets a voucher? Who decides?

The vast majority of those parents don’t give a crap about their kids and aren’t raising them properly and wouldn’t bother to fill in the paperwork to get them into a private school, let alone enforce the discipline standards, make sure they do their homework, etc. If everyone was a good parent then we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

Not an answer.

The answer is that you won’t need to find anywhere close to 50k places.

Let’s say 15k. Show me where those fifteen thousand private school seats are in DC. Go ahead.

Catholic schools are about $10-15k for k-8, and $20-25k for high school.

Yep, and those prices will rise by the amount of the voucher. This is what happened with government subsidized loans for college. It just causes inflation. Simple economics.

Catholic schools are already way more expensive than that. Since DC already has vouchers. Why don't you all just move into DC? They are means tested though, so you probably make too much to use them anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be WONDERFUL if a voucher program were to come to the DMV.

Who wouldn’t welcome more choice?

Where would all the slots come from? Most private schools (even parochial ones) are full or nearly full. They would be overwhelmed with demand.

They would adapt and expand, of course.

No they wouldn't. Half of the sell is that they are smaller with smaller class sizes and more individualized attention and admin that knows every kid. Expanding would go against that, and turn off the parents who chose a smaller school for a reason.